So one thing to consider when looking at "win rate based on length of game" is that the relative volume of games that end in that timeframe is also significant, particularly with very early games. For example if a civilization has no tools for rushing an opponent but have very good early-game defensive options, just looking at the win rate might suggest they are "bad" at early game because they are never looking to end games early. But if there are very few games that in this length range because they almost always survive the early game, then calling them bad can be deceptive. And in general why WOULD you be picking a non-rushing civ in order to win a game in under 10 minutes? So player behavior also comes into play. I'm not claiming that any AoE4 civs fit into that category; just pointing it out as a factor.
Yeah agreed, if a civ never attacks before 5 minutes, it will never win before 5 minutes. But if it loses once that would appear as 100% loss rate before 5 minutes, which is highly misleading.
Pick and win-rate statistics are so interesting, I love hearing people like the Prismata devs explain their process of interpreting them. You can even get reinforcing feedback loops if you share the data with the player-base at large who is like ''Ohh that's good huh?'', forming a meta by suggestion. It can even get stagnant, mostly among players who wanna use good strats but don't want the headache of truly figuring out the how and why, which I figure tends to cover a large gradient on the ELO scale, I'm guessing with a spike in the low mids.
Just keep in mind that with the HRE the reason they do so poorly early on is because most players are just trying to go fast imp instead of using the massive eco bonus to fight
Great vid! would be cool to see error bars on the data points on the graphs and the percentages since you explicitly made the point about significance.
Well considering they are a rush faction, you need spearmen or archers to make rams which are essential. Also I find Mongol cav to be underwhelming. Against an English rush, light cav won't survive against the archers and are too expensive. It's easier and cheaper to out mass them in archers. And they don't get any great cavalry bonuses, so French and Abbasid out perform them in that regard. Mangudai are only useful as a villager killer, and for harassing.
where are you getting this information? I just checked the aoe2 and aoe4 steam active player charts. aoe4 all time high is larger than aoe2, but the current 24 hour average is larger for aoe2.
I have to say, I was a mongols guy, and lately I've been absolutely loving Rus. They just feel so right. And I'm not even tapping into as much as I should with their hunting micro in the early game. They just feel so balanced but I love throwing a ton of warrior monks into the mix with knights. So fun. Mongols felt too tricky at times
Looking forward to your next aoe2 vid. Hopefully it will be a full in dept version of poles and when to go on stone and how their stone mechanic works with hold and stone resource gathering in the meta
Naw. Its before the British Empire. The french actually had slightly better ships. But then again, during that time, there wasntvrealy ship to ship combat. Just boarding
AoE game designer: I would have an OP French civ AoE community: How original AoE game designer: And a top tier Mongol civ AoE community: Daring today aren't we
AOE Game Designer: I’m thinking about doing something to make 2nd worst civ even more handicapped instead of nerfing the obvious advantages of the top two civs AOE community: sounds about right
Lets face it. Strategy gamers in general came to this game. Command & conquer, starcraft. They're all vastly different to aoe. Avg game length of the former is 10 mins and there's only 5 civs out of 15 that are viable
@@frozenfeet4534 allied, soviet, yuri. Yuri is standalone the earlier you go. Allied and soviet have 5 countries which only change is the civ unique unit
There is one little thing to look out for: All the graphs are scaled differently, so a vast gap for one of the earlier civs (like Delhi) in winrate may be a 20% difference while for something like the Rus it's more like 6%.
Historically accurate? Then how come they collapsed as quickly as they rose to power? At least the English, French, HRE and different Chinese dynasties had longevity.
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Mongolian ruled China isn't the same as Mongolia, we make a distinction between Rome and the Eastern Roman Empire too because it was culturally distinct from its predecessor.
@@Zwijger I guess they suffered less from rebellion and more from corruption. We still say that Napoleonic France or Nazi Germany were superpowers, and they got taken down decently fast. Mongolia is in a similar boat, as it fell due to infighting and distrust between Ghengis Khan’s grandchildren
honestly I see some racism here. OF COURSE the Eurocentric pieces of shit will make Abbasids, Saraceans and Delhi Sultanate powerless. Also why only the Abbasids when Ummayad Spain existed at the same time. Meanwhile Europeans get French, English, Holy Roman Empire and Rus. AND there are no African or Native American civs at all the game. And the single player game has campaigns for 3 of the 4 European civs, the only non-European civ to get one is Mongols which mostly concentrates on the Mongols in Europe instead of the damage they did to the Delhi Sultanate and Abbasids.
@@jhonshephard921 You're trolling right??? I hope. Wait you're serious lmfao . Theres a reason why Africa doesnt have a civ. Cause it would be huts and them throwing spears and bows it wouldn't work. Africa got all its tech from Europe. You see some racism here lmfao grow up. It's called the game is broken . You're one of those weirdos.
I just want camels to be good.. I main Abbasids, but having to pay 180 food for Camel meele cav is not funny, considering the French have to pay "only" 140 with a WAY stronger heavy cav unit..
@@BluePieNinjaTV yeah and that’s what will probably happen, there will be a DLC or expansion which will probably have a major update to the game and will probably include about four new civs. That’s not to say there won’t be smaller dlcs in the meantime, maybe one adding campaigns for the four civs that don’t have one.
0:45 Al'usrat aleabaasiat hi al'aswa'a. 2:45 दिल्ली सल्तनत खराब है। 4:05 Das Heilige Römische Reich ist schlecht. 5:02 中國人很壞。 5:55 The English are good. 7:00 Русы хорошие. 8:05 Les Français sont bons. 9:18 Монголчууд хамгийн шилдэг нь.
@@junkyardemperor7030 Sure, but they also have their own traditional straight-written Mongolian alphabets, which used in Chinese occupied Mongolia and later the Mongolia's gonna replace Cyrillic alphabets with it.
Besides perhaps you prefer to use 中國人不太好？ Because 中國人很壞 means not "Chinese are bad", but more like "Chinese are mean". If you're just talking about the civs in game
@@singularityraptor4022 Well they were technically only attacked by the chagatai khanate not the whole empire and fought mostly through defending small skirmishes and raids. The later invasion from Timur utterly devastated the delhi sultanate and his descendant Babur created the mughal (literally meaning "mongol") empire.
That evens itself out with the elo system though. Higher skilled players that pick a mobile civ will then play against equally or even higher skilled players of other civs.
HRE and Delhi have too many bugs... I main HRE and the lack of bracing for spearman really hurts vs early game cav civs. HRE also has prelate bug and relics boosting enemy ships attack speed 😂
Because you show data so often it would be interesting to make a math video about statistics and data evaluation. I think it would fit very well to your channel and probably a lot of people would learn something(me included).
As someone who plays as the Mongols, here's my personal experience. Easist civ to counter = Abbasids, Hardest = Delhi/Mongols . Most succesful maps = Boulder Bay/Confluence, least succesful map = King of the Hill. Note: Delhi only become hard once they get their Elephants going.
HRE is definitely hurt by the prelate not autocasting at times. So if you get unlucky, you spent 100 gold in the first few minutes and you're down a vil that you could have had otherwise.
I'm a pure Abbasid after going through the civs and learning them, and I have a winrate I'm very happy with. The "trick" is go heavy spears early on, fast castle, and squeeze out a mangonal. At that point you are really uncontested in matchups. I try not to get greedy with a second town center until I have some map control, and being that spearmen can run across the map then build siege, it's pretty simple. I haven't played a game yet where camel archers even were remotely a good idea, but I do get some camels out to buff infantry. I love them and for the first time ever in an Age game I feel really competitive :) Btw I LOVE YOUR VIDS!
I haven't had any issues when facing the Mongols as HRE. I would recommend building an early wooden wall that is far enough to prevent the Khan from picking off your villagers. Next, I would recommend your army to be comprised of only Spearmen and Crossbowmen, Man of Arms will not have an extra attack bonus as compared to Spearmen to Mongols cav also make a few scouts and a small group of knights to see where the Mongol player will move his base and send the knights to destroy his base when it's moving. Goodluck!
@@petersifuentez6420 Thanks for the insight. I only play HRE. I have played 150 games and have a 60% win rate using a 13 minute rush with only archers....and battering rams. The mongols are always the hardest for me.
Mongols amazing at first then falling off over time fits so perfectly. They dominated then fell apart as time went by. Still, one of the most fun civs in the game probbaly for ever.
I think there is a data point missing when looking at the winrate over short and long games which is the amount of games with that duration. I would expect a defensive civilization to have a low winrate in short games, but because they should have a tendency for longer games. In other words, if a game with a defensive civilization ends early, it's likely the more aggressive civilization won. If a defensive civilization's game plan is to survive to the late game and win then, a successful early game for them would then be surviving the early game instead of straight up winning it. Meaning, to measure a defensive civilization's success, one would need to look at the number of games that end quickly and not at the winrate for those games.
I suspect at least half of these Civs suffer from meta-syndrome, where HRE MUST fast imperial and Rus MUST fast castle and build horse archers and French MUST build knights even when they know the opponents is Abbasid. Still, very interesting breakdown
are you planning on doing civ overviews for AOE IV? ive been playing it on gamepass and i actually really like it so far. i feel like they actually managed to make most of the civs feel more historically accurate. longbowman replacing archers for the english outright, french having strong crossbowman and a unique knight unit etc
Still think that French have way too many bonuses and units compared to for example, the English who have literally nothing.. Abbasids need a buff to Camels with Delhi needs to be fixed in research times
Interesting that English have the best match up against Mongols. Since they get a unique mechanic to ward off aggro on a micro level. Maybe AoE4 should make micro heavy defense options for defensive nations more often.
English can't be tower rushed, unless they're really not paying attention, as their villagers can easily mow down both the Mongols own villager and their spearman guards, using their ranged attack. Combine this with the strength of longbows in Feudal, with Council Hall churning them out, and the Mongols are very quickly on the back foot as their usual tricks simply don't work. Also they have to spend time upgrading their horsemen if they want to try and counter Longbows with those, further delaying their defense at the most crucial time.
The reason Delhi lose on black forest is because they have no eco bonus'. When the map is SO closed off that both people can boom safely the Delhi just get destroyed. 'free techs' isn't even a bonus when your opponent is also not getting many because they are also booming up. The lack of sacred sites is less about not getting that small amount of gold, and more about not being able to force the opponent out of a boom. Compare HRE that are also defensive, but one of the best booming civs with the prelate, relic, and imperial landmarks.
250k 1v1 games over the last 3 weeks!? I was on the fence if I should get the game or not, since I wasn't sure if anyone plays it at all, but I guess there's not much reason not to get it!
Very awesome, that you are doing AOE4 videos SOTL. I was afraid you would only stick with AOE2 and we would miss out on all the insights into the game mechanics of the new game. There are so many things, we don't know about the new aoe yet. :)
I just LOVE that your vids are about mechanics and stats. I am really sick of the dozens of vids that are just yet another 1v1 match that was "cool and/or slightly different for some minor reason." Give us more!
HRE late game stronkness is from its relics.. honestly its so strong if you can get 3 relics for a hefty amount of gold, you can stop mining it entirely until you decide to make large amounts of siege units, especially bombards. And with so many villagers not having to mine gold you can get super far ahead economically in age 3 that you can produce twice the amount of men in arms as they have army supply (which counter everything save for crossbows) as your opponent whilst still advancing to the imperial only 2 minutes after you advanced to age 3.
Thank you SPOTL! Your videos are always informative and enjoyable. In low elo 4v4 multiplayer games The Chinese are practically unstoppable. Due to the casual nature of the games and the massive size of the 4v4 maps (a deterrent to aggro play style), most players turtle until imperial age and by then the Chinese have the most unstoppable units in the Nest of Bees and Fire Lancers. They just mow down armies and buildings with absolute ease. I have yet to discover a late game counter this low elo juggernaut.
Nice video, but the main problem with these statistics is that it's hard to know just how much of them are affected by the players choosing the civs, and the build they use, rather than the civs themselves. For example, a player who's all about early aggression is more likely to choose english or mongol, which in turn would make english or mongol have a better win rate at the beginning of the game, with a steady dropoff as the game goes on for longer, because that's just how an aggressive strategy performs in general. It also makes sense that abasid and delhi don't have a good winrate early game, simply because the players who like to play aggressive builds aren't really attracted to those civs. I think however that those stats are a pretty good indicator of when to prepare for a push depending on what civ your opponent has chosen.
I think it could be interesting, yet complex, to look at the amount of wins over minutes played. As you tend to see the more defensive civs have a very bad track record at winning early game. However, I would not be surprised if the amount it's also very rare for them to loose early game, due to their defensive bonuses. However, since they lack an early game win condition it's possibly even more rare for them to actually secure a win early game. I could be completely wrong on this, but it does make me curious.
So basically every weak faction is just weak because the top factions are too strong in early game. Just nerf their early game and everything will fall into place.
If u nerf Early game for the English there is no reason to pick them. They already suck past a certain time simply cuz they lack techs and units that the French hv for example
I've come to a conclusion so far since buying the game the other week, the Mongols are class!!!!! I started as the English being my home country, found France are good for attack, today went to China and I was confused. But Mongols are class!!! Edit: it is actually the Malians I've found to be class!!! Never been Mongols!
Im really looking forward to when map choice is allowed. I havent played since November since it wasn't implemented. I do not ever want to play on water maps.
Me from my experience, i think the Mongols and The French have the best economy, the french have the Guild, when i was a nooby who would only put 8 workers on the 3 main resources and 2 on the stone, i loved the french, now im more battle hardened, i have 50 Farmers, 100 people deforestating the entire world, and 90 Gold miners, and 2 Stone miners, and a pretty balanced military. 2 spearmen, 2 MAA, 2 Crossbowmen, 2 Knights.
I think the other question is how many games for each civ end in a given amount of time. If a civ doesn't win in games that end quickly that could be a huge deal if most games end quickly, but it could be kind of irrelevant if they reliably win but take a bit longer.
When i play rus vs french i just go heavy on Wood build Walls Kremlin in choke point and watch the knights melt away, some watch towers and such just call the Villagers to get in them. Done deal. When i go rus vs english i just go super heavy on gold rush knights asap and deal damage as quikly as possible
I bought the game on release fully aware that i wasn't going to play it. I'm waiting for my favorite civs to get added as DLC but still want the game to be financially successful hence the paying full price for it.
Yeah I noticed that too, that and the 15% farm bonus by mills. They are the best civ for farming in the late game, which is a pretty substantial gold and food income.
Every nation has counter nation but i don't think it maters that much. İf i am playing against mongols i would pick english however it does not matter to me what nation i am playing. i would train some archers to counter mounted archers anyway.
I always love playing the Mongols, right from the start of the game. I am just a noob lol. If i see this i also notice i play really differently. I use different landmarks (the trading one as a starter and then the healer as 2nd and free units as 3rd). I also play pretty passive, while indeed if you think about it you can rush in pretty well as you get a raid bounty. What i always struggle with is the stone tho, the Oovoo is handy but is soooooo slow. And doesnt helps a lot. I like the monastery as oovoo as well.
Mongol is broken up to castle age. They don’t need to build house, that’s 150 wood saved in first 5 min. They can produce enough stone from oovoo to double produce units for age 1 aggression, that no one else can do. Equivalent to have a military building for free in age 1, and get 2 buildings for the cost of 1. They are oppressive in the first 5-7 min. And they can also match English and French for their age 2 pressures. Then at age 3 they can also make advanced siege units on the field like Abbasid. They can put tons of pressure for very little cost through out the entire game. Mongol is pretty much broken at this point.
